Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A)
Interior Design I added the information about the original refitted Enterprise here also, assuming both vessels were quite identical from the inside. Otherwise, things would get rather complicated, as most of this interior information should be moved to the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) page then... Ottens 18:20, 5 Jul 2004 (CEST) :You should remove all references before Star Trek IV, for a start. The vessels were not identical internally - Main Engineering was different, as was sickbay, we never saw a Rec Deck on the E-A. This is mostly incorrect information that needs to be fixed, especially the pictures. -- Michael Warren 13:00, 8 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::Well, that should be moved back to the original Enterprise page then. Ottens 23:32, 8 Jul 2004 (CEST) Disputes over Enterprise-A/Yorktown Somehow, people still dispute wether the Enterprise-A was a recommissionned Yorktown. However, it strikes me that, how can it not be?! First off, it was launched immediately after the destruction of the first Enterprise. I know that this is not impossible, just improbable. Secondly, the Yorktown was seen in the movie preceeding the one where E-A debuted. It was also seen getting heavily damaged, and it's crew most likely killed. This would result in a refit (normally a reconstruction, but Constitution's were being overhauled during this time) and a reenlistment of crew. Thirdly, the E-A was decommissioned after seven years. Seven years! A ship being decommissioned after only seven years of service (and not taking irreperable damage) is extremely unlikely. If it were true, it would be--''by far''--the shortest lived Starfleet ship that wasn't destroyed at the end of its career. Finally, and most importantly, Gene Roddenberry said it was a recommissioned Yorktown. Think about that for a second. Gene Roddenberry said it. If you were a devout Christian, would you say "Hmm... You know, I don't agree with the Third Commandment. I'm just going to ignore it and pretend it was never wrote. God is wrong when it comes to the Third Commandment" (Note: I have no idea what the Third Commandment says). No, you wouldn't. When it comes to Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry is God. His word is infallable. Proving him wrong would unmake Star Trek. If he says that the Klingons evolved from living cuddly pink teddy bears biologically engineered on a planet called Tatooine a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, travelled back in time and through space to Qo'noS where they evolved into the warrior race we all know and love, then... I don't think I need to repeat myself. It's unfortunate that he passed, so now what Rick Berman and Brannon Braga goes. But go ahead and argue with them, though personally, I like what they've done. Zeromaru... 6:40PM EST 2005-2-16 :If it's not on screen, it ain't canon. And I'm not sure Gene's word has any particular relevance here, considering he was not involved in the movies by that point. :I don't have any problem with the E''-A being a recommissioned ship, though I don't like the choice of the ''Yorktown because the ship did not seem that bad off in ST IV. Wasn't there a technical manual or something that said it was originally the Ti-Ho? -- Steve 22:48, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::I've rewritten the USS Yorktown article to take an appropriate neutral tone regarding the matter -- it's something thats open to a lot of interpretation, especially since most people assume that to TOS Yorktown and the Movie Yorktown are the same vessel, when its equally as possible a ship from the 2270s named Yorktown was renamed, rather than a brand new one or an extremely old one. ::Regardless of all this though, this does all belong in background notes here -- because the shows and movies have never addressed it specifically, we aren't allowed to pass these speculations as fact by placing them declaratively in the primary article space or lists. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 22:59, 18 Feb 2005 (GMT) :::Along those same lines, supposedly Gene also said that he didn't like Trek V and Trek VI and wanted them excised from canon. Should we therefore remove all information pertaining to those movies from MA? :::Although it is likely that the Enterprise-A was a renamed ship, it could've been named virtually anything beforehand, as Steve pointed out. -- SmokeDetector47 07:37, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT) ::::Well, there is the theory that the campfire "life is but a dream" in the opening and ending are meant to signal the beginning and end of a dream sequence. However, at least they made it on film. Roddenberry's comments didn't. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:49, 19 Feb 2005 (GMT) Enterprise A Decommissioning I don't recall it being said that the Enterprise-A would be decommissioned before the end of Star Trek VI. I know at least Scotty was retiring. Regardless, I think it could be safely conjectured that the Enterprise-A's constant bugs, beginning with the shakedown cruise, might have been the reason for its decommissioning. --Kitch 13:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Actually, I think it had more to do with the removal of the Klingons as a threat, leading to the decomisioning of what could be percieved as a warship. Simply put, the Enterprise was no longer needed. 78 decks I wouldn't call that an embarrassing error. It seemed pretty intentional and was probably a nod to the 78 TOS episodes (counting the two-parter "The Menagerie" as one episode). --James Cody 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) : For some reason I seem to remember an interview with an art department staffer who worked on Star Trek V and mentioned that Mike Okuda and several members of the production staff tried to reason with William Shatner and explain that Andrew Probert had designed the E-A with only 21 decks and that it didn't fit with established Trek lore to number the decks from the bottom of the ship to the top. He wouldn't listen to them, and considering that it had already been firmly established that the E-D, with 42 decks, was a much larger ship, it was a bad call. At any rate, I do think it is somewhat embarrassing that the trio seem to pass the same decks a few times and that the decks don't seem to be numbered in any particular chronological order. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 21:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Wolf 359 Some may have noticed the Constitution-class refit destroyed at the battle of Wolf 359. Since the constitution-class had been abandon decades prior (probably with the Enterprise-A's retirement), this must have been a mothballed ship, probably a trainer, pressed in to service out of desperation. For the ship to have lasted to this point, it must have been a famous ship with a great liniage. Let me also mention here that we have no direct evidence of any constitution-class refit other than the Enterprise-A at the time of it's retirement. So then, I submit to you: Could this have been the last flight of the Enterprise-A? Sequencing Wouldn't this techically be the third ship to carry the name "Enterprise", if you count the Enterprise NX-01? The article for the NCC-1701 also says it is the first to carry the name. Are you not counting pre-federation vessels? --141.157.14.187 13:32, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC) :The article says the Enterprise-A is the second Federation starship to bear the name. The NX-01 was not affiliated with the Federation (since it had not yet been founded) nor was it officially designated as a starship (its dedication plaque designates it as a "spacecraft"). From another point, you can look at it as being the second ship to carry the full name U.S.S. Enterprise. In any case, when saying a ship is the first, second, third, etc. Federation starship to bear a name, we're not counting pre-Federation ships. --From Andoria with Love 22:06, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)